Huck Finn
Well-known
I have seen some stunning photos posted here by those of you who were narrowing the depth of field with fast to ultra-fast lenses. I'm pretty much in awe of your technique & moved by your results. The bokeh is great.
However, this doesn't seem to work for my shooting style. I'm trying to maximize depth of field because often I'm shooting quickly & don't have time to fiddle with focus. Lately I've started to use faster film to shoot indoors rather than wider apertures. A nice benefit is smaller lenses.
I wonder how others work. Do you favor faster lenses or faster film? Shallow or greater depth of field?
However, this doesn't seem to work for my shooting style. I'm trying to maximize depth of field because often I'm shooting quickly & don't have time to fiddle with focus. Lately I've started to use faster film to shoot indoors rather than wider apertures. A nice benefit is smaller lenses.
I wonder how others work. Do you favor faster lenses or faster film? Shallow or greater depth of field?
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Fast film and hyperfocal distances are your friends... 
It does depend on the given shot and the circumstances, but if I'm wandering about, especially on a sunny day, I'm really likely to have 400 speed film in, f/16 with infinity on the 16 mark and the shutter at 1/500th. Most of the time that works well. If the light changes, I'm more likely to adjust the shutter rather than the aperture.
William
It does depend on the given shot and the circumstances, but if I'm wandering about, especially on a sunny day, I'm really likely to have 400 speed film in, f/16 with infinity on the 16 mark and the shutter at 1/500th. Most of the time that works well. If the light changes, I'm more likely to adjust the shutter rather than the aperture. William
S
sfaust
Guest
I go for fast lenses. I love the shallow DOF look for isolating the subject. Its one of the reasons I use a 300mm 2.8 on a SLR, not to get closer, but to really limit the DOF.
Whit my RFs, I tend to use a faster film and smaller apertures. This resolves any inaccuracies in VF/lens focus, the fact that I can't confirm the DOF in the viewfinder, and the shooting from the hip style. But when I have time to carefully focus on the subject, I'll open up the lens wide and take a shot, but also stop it down a few stops and take another one just in case.
Whit my RFs, I tend to use a faster film and smaller apertures. This resolves any inaccuracies in VF/lens focus, the fact that I can't confirm the DOF in the viewfinder, and the shooting from the hip style. But when I have time to carefully focus on the subject, I'll open up the lens wide and take a shot, but also stop it down a few stops and take another one just in case.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Fast women, fast cars and especially fast lenses!
I used to think 2.8 was fast until I found Rangefinders at 1.7, my 50mm summilux is 1.4. I like a smooth OOF or bokeh and the ability to shoot in available darkness so it's f2 and less for me (although that creates a hole in my pocket book due to the higher price of fast lenses). I say all this as I have been looking at the VC 28mm 3.5 so go figure!
Todd
I used to think 2.8 was fast until I found Rangefinders at 1.7, my 50mm summilux is 1.4. I like a smooth OOF or bokeh and the ability to shoot in available darkness so it's f2 and less for me (although that creates a hole in my pocket book due to the higher price of fast lenses). I say all this as I have been looking at the VC 28mm 3.5 so go figure!
Todd
R
Roman
Guest
Quite often I need fast lenses and fast films at the same time - TMax 3200 (@3200), f/2 and 1/30 sec. is not an unusual combination for me...
Roman
Roman
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The best of both worlds fast film and fast lenses. Keep all your options open and leave the tripod at home.
taffer
void
One of the things I've come to appreciate most from the great photogs here is how important the OOF areas can be. OTH, shooting at very fast apertures also challenges your ability (if shooting a moving subject), your eyesight and your baselenght
That said, I like to take advantadge of fast lenses when I can (low light, or intentionally want to render very oof areas), but while street shooting if I have to do it fast I often find myself at f/8 and focus preset at 3 meters, then approaching my subjects from a distance that I think will optimize that setting.
Then you see fast street shots taken wide open and with spot on focus (and non-af) and you know you still have so much to learn
As for choosing a lens, it's all a compromise between bulk/compact fast/slow affordable/expensive. Of course you can fit a 35/1.2 on a Bessa R2 but it will no longer be as compact as it was with a pancake.
Then there's that 40/1.4 compact Nokton and here's where neverending discussions about optical quality and your personal preferences begin...
That said, I like to take advantadge of fast lenses when I can (low light, or intentionally want to render very oof areas), but while street shooting if I have to do it fast I often find myself at f/8 and focus preset at 3 meters, then approaching my subjects from a distance that I think will optimize that setting.
Then you see fast street shots taken wide open and with spot on focus (and non-af) and you know you still have so much to learn
As for choosing a lens, it's all a compromise between bulk/compact fast/slow affordable/expensive. Of course you can fit a 35/1.2 on a Bessa R2 but it will no longer be as compact as it was with a pancake.
Then there's that 40/1.4 compact Nokton and here's where neverending discussions about optical quality and your personal preferences begin...
Last edited:
I rarely stop down below F5.6. I like to isolate my subject and blur out the background. I also favor short telephoto's in the 85~105 range, and usuallly keep an F2 or faster lens mounted. The F0.95 is a specialty lens for me; it is very heavy compared to the F1.4 Nikkor or Canon that I normally use on the Canon 7.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
"Its one of the reasons I use a 300mm 2.8 on a SLR, not to get closer, but to really limit the DOF."
Sounds like you appreciate a nice set of optics, as well. I'd have to set both elbows on a table or counter top to steady that much glass.
With regards to shooting wide open, I generally pack a camera that is near the half-century mark. This generally a medium format folder, which may or may not have an self-stopping film advance. Anyway, due to the limitations of the Tessar design, shooting anyone middle age or above subject can be much more flattering with the aperture wide open. I find that the ladies especially appreciate the softer look.
On cloudy wintery days, I generally shoot Tri-X at 1600 and develop in Microdol X. It's a different look and one that requires you to fill the frame with the subject.
Sounds like you appreciate a nice set of optics, as well. I'd have to set both elbows on a table or counter top to steady that much glass.
With regards to shooting wide open, I generally pack a camera that is near the half-century mark. This generally a medium format folder, which may or may not have an self-stopping film advance. Anyway, due to the limitations of the Tessar design, shooting anyone middle age or above subject can be much more flattering with the aperture wide open. I find that the ladies especially appreciate the softer look.
On cloudy wintery days, I generally shoot Tri-X at 1600 and develop in Microdol X. It's a different look and one that requires you to fill the frame with the subject.
peter_n
Veteran
I admire shots that make use of DOF and try to use the same technique myself wherever possible. Sometimes you can't - the lighting and the circumstances dictate otherwise.
My fastest lens is an f2 and I use 400ASA in the winter and 100ASA in the summer. I also try to avoid lenses that have a reputation for harsh OOF areas.
My fastest lens is an f2 and I use 400ASA in the winter and 100ASA in the summer. I also try to avoid lenses that have a reputation for harsh OOF areas.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Like Roman said,
Fast lenses _and_ fast film. I was shooting some candid's at a friend's wedding, Neopan 1600 w/ Minolta SLR, F1.4 @ about 1/15 or so. I had HP5+ in the Canon GIII QL17 and was shooting that wide open, 1/15 as well.
The other option, is to shoot with a wide angle, or a digital p&s set to the hyperfocal distance. The smaller sensors give a _huge_ DOF even at the larger aperatures. My little Canon A70's hyperfocal distance is 3.5ft at the wide angle 35mm equiv @ f2.8 so everything from 1.5ft on out is in focus.
Fast lenses _and_ fast film. I was shooting some candid's at a friend's wedding, Neopan 1600 w/ Minolta SLR, F1.4 @ about 1/15 or so. I had HP5+ in the Canon GIII QL17 and was shooting that wide open, 1/15 as well.
The other option, is to shoot with a wide angle, or a digital p&s set to the hyperfocal distance. The smaller sensors give a _huge_ DOF even at the larger aperatures. My little Canon A70's hyperfocal distance is 3.5ft at the wide angle 35mm equiv @ f2.8 so everything from 1.5ft on out is in focus.
S
sfaust
Guest
Solinar said:
I do like nice glass! I generally shoot that lens on a tripod or monopod. I don't use it much on sports, etc where I need to move much. But manily for models, fashion, and editorial work. A tripod is fine in those cases.
Your comment regarding the middle aged and older lenses is spot on. I also have an older Tamaron 300mm 2.8 lens that has a loose internal element. I've contemplated repairing it, but decided not to once I saw the results. At 2.8, it shallows the DOF very nicely, a sliver in fact, but the internal element thats loose softens us the image just perfectly. So I've left it as is, and use it soley for that purpose. The Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR lens on the other hand is razor sharp. Not much use for women, they hate it! I shuold probably fix it and sell it, and just use a filter on the Nikon 300mm 2.8 instead. I should see if I can get the same effect and do that. It would make good financial sense, no
My fastest leses are a Nikon 50mm 1.4, and a new CV 40mm 1.4 for the R3a. Both of these lenses are great for very shallow DOF as well.
N
nwcanonman
Guest
I love a good fast lens, with good Bokeh. For an SLR, my 85mm f1.8 is ideal and with the Canonet Q17 works for me.
Tried Fuji's 1600asa color last month and was really impressed with it's lack of grain (compared to films even 5 years ago).
Tried Fuji's 1600asa color last month and was really impressed with it's lack of grain (compared to films even 5 years ago).
It's great to have a reasonably fast lens to limit DoF at indoor distances, but I think it's then easy to let DoF to go too narrow at portrait distances. It's probably a matter of preference, but I've seen some shots where I think the DoF is TOO narrow, while I agree backgrounds can get too busy too.
Generally, I'm content with f/2.8 as a maximum aperture for 35-format lenses 24-100mm... except with SLRs where a wider aperture aids focusing and viewing.
In daylight a fast film can be a problem when your fastest shutter speed is 1/1000 or even 1/500. You end up with smaller apertures than are ideal for lens sharpness or controlling DoF. So I try to anticipate the light I'll encounter and load a reasonable film. EI 250 is pretty versatile...
All that said, a fast lens is more versatile than a slower one if you can accept the bulk. And a slower film is sharper and less grainy...
Now, am I better off with a 645-format camera with an f/4 lens and ISO 800 film... or a 35mm camera with an f/2 lens and ISO 200 film... or a half-frame camera with an f/1.4 lens and ISO 100 film? Keeping in mind smaller format/shorter lens results in more DoF... Say, in terms of the quality of an 11x14" enlargement.
Generally, I'm content with f/2.8 as a maximum aperture for 35-format lenses 24-100mm... except with SLRs where a wider aperture aids focusing and viewing.
In daylight a fast film can be a problem when your fastest shutter speed is 1/1000 or even 1/500. You end up with smaller apertures than are ideal for lens sharpness or controlling DoF. So I try to anticipate the light I'll encounter and load a reasonable film. EI 250 is pretty versatile...
All that said, a fast lens is more versatile than a slower one if you can accept the bulk. And a slower film is sharper and less grainy...
Now, am I better off with a 645-format camera with an f/4 lens and ISO 800 film... or a 35mm camera with an f/2 lens and ISO 200 film... or a half-frame camera with an f/1.4 lens and ISO 100 film? Keeping in mind smaller format/shorter lens results in more DoF... Say, in terms of the quality of an 11x14" enlargement.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm not against fast lenses but i do prefer smaller ones, so i lean towards the slower ones.
i like fast film, like the look of it and grain does not bother me at all.
there is medium and large format if i wanted grainless and sharp.
i had a mamiya 6 for years and those lenses were very slow (but oh so sharp) so i have experience with slow lenses. 2.5 doesn't seem all that slow to me.
joe
i like fast film, like the look of it and grain does not bother me at all.
there is medium and large format if i wanted grainless and sharp.
i had a mamiya 6 for years and those lenses were very slow (but oh so sharp) so i have experience with slow lenses. 2.5 doesn't seem all that slow to me.
joe
Huck Finn
Well-known
backalley photo said:
How about f/3.5, Joe? As in CV 28/3.5. I also like small.
Huck
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
if i were to get a 28 (doubtful) i would get the cv 3.5.
frim what i've read, it's small & sharp, just my style.
i say doubtful that i would get one cause i just don't 'see' in wide angle.
a bit funny really because often when i like a shot, it's a wide angle one. go figure.
joe
frim what i've read, it's small & sharp, just my style.
i say doubtful that i would get one cause i just don't 'see' in wide angle.
a bit funny really because often when i like a shot, it's a wide angle one. go figure.
joe
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I like fast lenses. Proof is, my one and only slow zoom lens (for the Minolta SLR) was not used in the last 1-1.5 years. Not once.
However, it's amazing how people pay 2-3X more for a f/1.4 normal lens versus the f/1.7 version - a speed difference achievable by going to a less than 1-stop faster film. Of course, DOF will not be shallower... but the DOF difference between 1.4 and 1.7 is not *that* much...
Otherwise, as Roman says... when i really need the widest aperture on the lens, i also need the fastest film possible.
However, it's amazing how people pay 2-3X more for a f/1.4 normal lens versus the f/1.7 version - a speed difference achievable by going to a less than 1-stop faster film. Of course, DOF will not be shallower... but the DOF difference between 1.4 and 1.7 is not *that* much...
Otherwise, as Roman says... when i really need the widest aperture on the lens, i also need the fastest film possible.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
By the way - if i have 400-speed colour neg in my camera, like NPH, i don't panic on a sunny day - i just overexpose it by 1 or even 2 stops, it works quite well. (It is the case with the max 1/500 -speed of the Yashica rf's, once in a while).
K
Kris
Guest
Pherdinand said:
A bit off topic but NPH400 is only ISO200-250, not ISO400 as indicated. At least that's the ISO speed that works well for my metering technique.
Fast RF lenses are still small so I choose the fast ones (as long as my wallet can afford them) over their slower siblings.
I always put the most appropriate film into the camera before heading out so I never find myself wishing for faster shutter speed. ISO50-200 during the day, ISO 400-3200 at night. I do lots of mid-roll rewind and later put the films back in.